JUDGMENT
V.M. Jain, J.
1. This regular second appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, whereby the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.
2. The facts in brief are that Mukanda filed a suit for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction against the defendant-respondents. It was alleged that the
Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978, titled as “Kura etc. vs. Saudagar”, was illegal and void and not binding on the rights of Mukanda, the plaintiff, and that Mutation No.495 dated 26.5.1980, entered into on the basis of the said decree was also liable to be set aside. By way of consequential relief, it was alleged that the defendants be restrained from alienating the property in any manner, whatsoever. It was alleged that Saudagar was the owner of the suit land and that the same was Joint Hindu Family property and coparcenary property and the plaintiff was a member of the coparcenary. It was alleged that the suit land was the ancestral property of Saudgar (deceased) qua the plaintiff. It was also alleged that Saudagar (deceased) transferred the suit land during his life time in favour of defendants 1 and 2 namely Kura Ram and Krishan Lal by virtue of the aforesaid decree without giving anything to the plaintiff and his sister Dayalo. It was alleged that Saudagar was not competent to transfer the suit property in favour of defendant no. 1 and 2 as the suit property was the ancestral property and no family settlement had taken place.
3. The suit was contested by defendants No.1 and 2. It was alleged that defendant No.3 Saudagar was the absolute owner of the suit land and the same was his self-acquired property. It was denied that the suit land was Joint Hindu Property or a co-parcenary property or that the plaintiff was the co-parcenar with the defendants. It was alleged that the Civil Court decree was passed in pursuance of an oral family settlement and that the Civil Court, decree was perfectly legal and valid and binding on the plaintiff.
4. A written statement was also filed by defendant No.3 Saudagar alleging therein that the suit land was his self-acquired property and he was the absolute owner thereof. He also denied that the suit property was a Joint Hindu Family Property or that the plaintiff was a member of the Joint Hindu Family. Subsequently, defendant No.3 Saudagar died and his LRs were brought on record.
5. After hearing both the sides, the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff, holding that the suit land was the ancestral property of Saudagar (deceased) and he was not competent to transfer the same in favour of the defendants 1 and 2, depriving the plaintiff of his legitimate share in the ancestral land. It was further alleged that the Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978 was illegal and void and was not binding on the rights of the plaintiff and was liable to be set aside. Resultantly, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. However, the appeal filed by the defendants was accepted by the Learned Additional District Judge, the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court were set aside and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed holding that the suit land was not proved to be ancestral nor was a Joint Hindu Family Property. It was further held that Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978 was perfectly legal and valid and was binding on the plaintiff. Resultantly, the appeal was allowed.
6. Aggrieved against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional District Judge, the plaintiff filed the present regular second appeal in this court.
7. At the time of arguments, no one came present on behalf of the respondents.
8. I have heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and have gone through the record carefully. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted before me that the suit property was proved to be ancestral property in view of the copies of the mutation Exhibits P5, P6 and P7. However, I find no force in this submission of he learned counsel for the appellant Admittedly, the property described in Exhibits P5, P6 and P7 is not connected with the property which is the subject matter of the previous suit vide which the Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978 was passed, nor the same is connected with the suit property which is the subject matter of dispute in the present suit. Mutations Exhibits P5, P6 and P7 are of the year 1974. Subsequent thereto, consolidation had taken place in the village. No efforts were made on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant to connect the land covered by the aforesaid mutations with the land which was the subject matter of
dispute in the civil suit on the basis of which the Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978
was passed by the Civil Court. As referred to above, the plaintiff in the present suit had
alleged that the suit property was ancestral and Joint Hindu Family Property, which fact
was specifically denied not only by defendants 1 and 2, but also by defendant 3 Saudagar, in his separate written statement. Under these circumstances, it was for the plaintiff
to have produced the cogent evidence on record to show that the suit property was ancestral property of Saudagar and was a Joint Hindu Family Property. However, no evidence was led by the plaintiff in this regard. As referred to above, the mutations Exhibits P5, P6, P7 would be of no help to the plaintiff-appellant to prove the ancestral nature
of the plaintiff.
9. It was then submitted by the counsel for the appellant that the Civil Court decree was passed on the basis of oral family settlement and that in fact, there should be a family settlement in writing which should have been registered. It was further submitted that in any case, the Civil Court decree should have been registered. However, I find no force in these submissions as well. No law requires the family settlement to be in writing. If the family settlement is in writing, it would require registration. However, if there is an oral family settlement or there is a memorandum of family settlement in writing, the same would not require registration. Furthermore, the Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978 in the present case was passed on oral family settlement which had earlier taken place.
10. Under these circumstances, in my opinion, the Civil Court decree did not require registration especially when the decree was passed on the oral family settlement which had already taken place before the filing of the suit. In my opinion, the learned Additional District Judge was perfectly justified in holding that the Civil Court decree dated 14.2.1978 did not require registration.
11. Accordingly, I affirm the findings recorded by the learned Additional District Judge. No other point has been urged before me.
12. For the reasons recorded above, finding no merit in the appeal, I dismiss the
same.